| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsqlperform <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] database bloat, but vacuums are done, and fsm seems |
| Date: | 2005-10-03 21:47:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1128376022.8603.137.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 09:07 +0200, hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> database has quite huge load of updates, but i thought that vacum will
> guard me from database bloat, but from what i observed it means that
> vacuuming of b-tree indices is somewhat faulty.
No, thats perfectly normal.
Indices are packed tighter when they are first created and they spread
out a bit as you update the database. Blocks start at 90% full and end
up at 50% full for non-monotonic indexes (e.g. SERIAL) or 67% for
monotonic.
It's a long debated design feature on any DBMS that uses b-trees.
REINDEX or dump/restore should be identical.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-10-03 22:15:22 | Re: Suggest forums software for postgresql? |
| Previous Message | Chris St Denis | 2005-10-03 21:38:11 | Suggest forums software for postgresql? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-10-03 21:51:32 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2005-10-03 21:43:10 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |